HB 641 - CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL FOR PA

[NoHackrLtd]

Just got the notice of the "Castle Doctrine" being introduced today in the House in Harrisburg.

On first read, it looks good. Need to sit down and really read it well.

Link: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=0641&pn=0702

Read it and post comments!

[Intrigue]

Good! People need to realize that a person's home and the belongings within are the result of time and energy spent (time which you will never get back). Therefore, the things that you own are worth a portion of your life (the portion that you had to work to **EARN** these things).

I'm all for the Castle Doctrine. My house, my rules. My Body, My life, This is the way it should have been from the start. Glad we're finally changing it and getting around to it!

Edit: I don't have time to read it right now, but will this be extended to one's vehicle? I believe Florida does something like that, where your vehicle is an extension of your home.

[Intrigue]

Looks like we're in luck!!!

4 (4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth
5 have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their
6 homes or vehicles.
7 (5) No person should be required to surrender his or her
8 personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be
9 required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or
10 attack outside the person's home or vehicle.

[D-FENS]

Originally Posted by Jon Smykal

Good! People need to realize that a person's home and the belongings within are the result of time and energy spent (time which you will never get back). Therefore, the things that you own are worth a portion of your life (the portion that you had to work to **EARN** these things).

You're absolutely right although I think the psychological damage of being kidnapped, robbed, or burglarized has far more impact on a person than their possessions. I can't say I know what rape feels like but I think I can safely say that a man not being able to defend himself or his family are as close as it gets.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Jon Smykal

Edit: I don't have time to read it right now, but will this be extended to one's vehicle? I believe Florida does something like that, where your vehicle is an extension of your home.

I am on lunch and just started reading the Bill.

(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.

I doubt I'll get to read it all because I only take 30 minutes. I may take it home to finish.

Dave G.

[billamj]

It is looking pretty much like it could be the bill that we've been hoping for. One thought that I have though is could this have been proposed as a bargaining chip to deny something HB30? It has happened in the past, we'll just have to keep a close watch on this one.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by billamj

It is looking pretty much like it could be the bill that we've been hoping for. One thought that I have though is could this have been proposed as a bargaining chip to deny something HB30? It has happened in the past, we'll just have to keep a close watch on this one.

What worries me is the possibility of "tit-for-tat":

"Hey you give us HB30 (the PA AWB), and we'll give you HB641 (Castle Doctrine)".

I hope the pro-gun contingent doesn't play that game.

On the surface, it looks like a really good bill; I have to read it in detail before I make a final assessment on it, however. If it passes my personal "litmus test" I'll be writing the legislators asking them to support it. Personally, I'm interested to see how the new Democratic Rep in Berks county, David Kessler (my new rep) will vote on this.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

What worries me is the possibility of "tit-for-tat":

"Hey you give us HB30 (the PA AWB), and we'll give you HB641 (Castle Doctrine)".

I hope the pro-gun contingent doesn't play that game.

On the surface, it looks like a really good bill; I have to read it in detail before I make a final assessment on it, however. If it passes my personal "litmus test" I'll be writing the legislators asking them to support it. Personally, I'm interested to see how the new Democratic Rep in Berks county, David Kessler (my new rep) will vote on this.

I'm thinking that, if anything, it would go the other way. "You pull the AWB and we'll pull the castle doctorine." You're right of course, I would much rather that they just push this through and kill the awb but the potential does exist.

[rwilson452]

I see my assemblyman is on board fromthe get go. I guess I should call and give him an attaboy.

[TrybalRage]

My Rep, who was on the AWB (may have changed) is also on this as a sponsor. Go figure.

Something strange, though.

The way (b)(2)(ii) is worded that deadly force is not justifiable if

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating...

but then 2.3 says that

An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity and who is attacked in any place where the actor has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use protective force, including deadly force, if the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.

So which is it?